STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. YUVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2001 delivered by the learned Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad ("MAT" for short), in Original Application No.776 of 2000, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The factual matrix of the present case is that the respondent herein-original applicant joined S.R.P.F. Group-8, as Constable, on 24.11.1971. Initially, he was promoted to the post of driver in the year 1982, and he was further promoted to the post of Driver-Mechanic in 1984 which, according to the respondent, is equivalent to the post of Head Constable. It is also contended by the Respondent that he was rewarded with 15 to 20 rewards out of which, 6 rewards were granted during the year 1995-96 and accordingly, respondent claims that his performance was good during his service career. He also faced 2 departmental enquiries, but he was exonerated therein, and no adverse remarks were communicated to him during his service period. The respondent was suspended by the authorities on the ground of private quarrel and he was asked to attend daily parade in the year 1992 to which he resisted. Respondent also contends that less payment was tried to be given to him in September 1996, but on his resistance, he was paid full payment. Accordingly, it is the grievance of the respondent that he was harassed on one or the other pretext, and when it became intolerable, he made representation on 16.7.1997 to allow him to take voluntary retirement after three months from the date of said representation. However, since no reply was received by the respondent, he sent another representation to petitioner No.1, on 27.9.1997. Thereafter, respondent sent notice on 16.10.1997 to the authorities, stating that the respondent has a right to retire voluntarily as per Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, "MCS (Pension) Rules"), since nothing was communicated to him within three months from the date of his representation dated 16.7.1997. The Respondent again sent representation on 14.3.1998, stating that he may be permitted to retire on 30.4.1998. He sent further representation on 8.5.1998, contending that he is deemed to have retired with effect from 16.5.1998.

(3.) Accordingly, the respondent went to the authorities to deposit all his saranjams, such as, uniforms, badge, etc., but same was not accepted and hence, the respondent made another representation to permit him to deposit the said articles, and requested the authorities to forward his pension papers. However, since no action was taken by the petitioners herein, the present respondent approached the learned Lok Ayukta, to redress his grievance, on 6.7.1998. Accordingly, the learned Lok Ayukta intervened in the matter due to which, on 23.3.1999 petitioner No.1 directed Petitioner No.2 to accept the voluntary retirement notice given by the respondent on 16.7.1997 and consequently the petitioners passed the order on 21.9.1999 accepting the notice for volutnary retirement and allowed the respondent herein to retire voluntarily from the date of acceptance of the saidnotice, but the period of 16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999 was treated as leave without salary and allowances. It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioners-authorities neither communicated, nor took any decision on his representation for voluntary retirement for substantial period, for which he cannot be held responsible. It is further contention of the respondent that the petitioners are trying to take disadvantage of their own wrong and by imposing a kind of punishment on the respondent, by treating the said period of 16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999 without salary and allowances, which is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, respondent made representations to the petitioners from 15.10.1999 to 16.2.2000, pointing out arbitrary action of the petitioners, and requested for grant of pension. Accordingly, provisional pension of Rs. 500/= per month was granted to Respondent from 21.9.1999 to January 2000, but thereafter no pension was granted to him. Moreover, although pension papers of the respondent were sent to the Accountant General in October 1999, same were sent back to the petitioners, as the petitioners had not taken final decision about the suspension period of the respondent herein.